BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building expert witness Anaheim California custom home expert witness Anaheim California mid-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California concrete tilt-up expert witness Anaheim California production housing expert witness Anaheim California custom homes expert witness Anaheim California institutional building expert witness Anaheim California condominiums expert witness Anaheim California townhome construction expert witness Anaheim California office building expert witness Anaheim California retail construction expert witness Anaheim California Subterranean parking expert witness Anaheim California parking structure expert witness Anaheim California multi family housing expert witness Anaheim California landscaping construction expert witness Anaheim California hospital construction expert witness Anaheim California high-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California tract home expert witness Anaheim California low-income housing expert witness Anaheim California industrial building expert witness Anaheim California casino resort expert witness Anaheim California housing expert witness Anaheim California
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anaheim, California

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211
    http://www.desertchapter.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501


    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biasc.org

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biaoc.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
    http://www.biabuild.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355


    Building Industry Association Southern California - Building Industry Association of S Ca Antelope Valley
    Local # 0532
    44404 16th St W Suite 107
    Lancaster, CA 93535



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    Waiver of Subrogation Enforced, Denying Insurers Recovery Against Additional Insured in $500 Million Off-Shore Oil Rig Loss

    What Made the Savannah Harbor Upgrade So Complicated?

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Is Your Business Insured for the Coronavirus?

    Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

    How To Fix Oroville Dam

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    Understanding the Miller Act

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    If You Purchase a House at an HOA Lien Foreclosure, Are You Entitled to Excess Sale Proceeds?

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    Federal Court Strikes Down 'Persuader' Rule

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Beginning of the 2020 Colorado Legislative Session: Here We Go Again

    COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

    Are COVID-19 Claims Covered by Builders Risk Insurance Policies?

    Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects

    Foreclosing Junior Lienholders and Recording A Lis Pendens

    Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

    Proposed California Legislation Would Eliminate Certain Obstacles to Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Tokyo Tackles Flood Control as Typhoons Swamp Subways

    Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Federal Court Asks South Dakota Supreme Court to Decide Whether Injunction Costs Are “Damages,” Adopts Restatement’s Position on Providing “Inadequate” Defense

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    AIA Releases Decennial 2017 Updates to its Contracts Suites

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    Flint Water Crisis Prompts Call for More Federal Oversight

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

    Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    Safety, Compliance and Productivity on the Jobsite

    Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through over four thousand construction defect and claims related expert designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory delivers a superior construction and design expert support solution to developers, risk managers, and construction claims professionals concerned with construction defect, scheduling, and delay claims. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the construction industry's leading builders and developers, legal professionals, and owners, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies. Employing in house assets which comprise testifying architects, design engineers, construction cost and standard of care experts, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California construction defect expert witnessAnaheim California forensic architectAnaheim California architectural engineering expert witnessAnaheim California roofing construction expertAnaheim California architect expert witnessAnaheim California construction expert testimonyAnaheim California construction forensic expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

    April 06, 2020 —
    It was a crazy week last week as the number of coronavirus cases in the United States jumped to 32,783 cases as of Sunday, from 3,680 cases, just a week before. In an attempt to “flatten the curve” and help those impacted by the virus, numerous federal, state, and local orders were issued, including orders requiring that residents “shelter in place.” For businesses impacted by the “shelter in place” orders, which, in California, means virtually every business in the state following Governor Newsom’s state-wide “shelter in place” order, there’s been confusion as to who can and can’t continue to work under the orders including among contractors and project owners. Although things have been changing, sometimes daily, here’s what you need to know about the “shelter in place” orders: The Local “Shelter In Place” Orders On Monday, March 16, 2020, six Bay Area counties, and the City of Berkeley, issued “shelter in place” orders requiring that residents in those counties and city shelter in place except for “Essential Activities,” if performing “Essential Governmental Functions,” or if operating “Essential Businesses.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

    April 06, 2020 —
    The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was signed by the President on March 18, 2020 and will become effective no later than April 2, 2020. The law contains numerous updates to the country’s employment regulations in response to the Coronavirus pandemic of which employers should be familiar. Of particular note, the FFCRA makes limited amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Now, pursuant to the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”) employees may take up to 12 weeks of family and medical leave after having worked with the employer for 30 calendar days if the employee is unable to work (or telework) due to the employee’s need to care for a son or daughter under 18 years of age due to the child’s school closure or unavailability of a childcare provider due to a public health emergency, i.e., COVID-19. Unlike the FMLA, which does not apply to many small employers, this requirement applies to any employers with 500 or fewer employees. No mileage radius requirement exists under the EFMLEA. When an employee utilizes leave pursuant to EFMLEA, the first 10 days of that leave may consist of unpaid leave, but the employee may elect to substitute any accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave, including the Emergency Paid Sick Leave provided for by the Act and described below). All subsequent days of leave taken by the employee after the tenth day must be paid by the employer at a rate of not less than two thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay and the number of hours the employee would otherwise normally be scheduled to work. The cap is $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate. Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

    May 11, 2020 —
    In response to the large number of COVID-19-related losses that businesses are experiencing, insurers have begun issuing statements informing their insureds of whether their policies will respond to the losses, and if so, what coverage will be afforded. Insurers cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the COVID-19 losses because, besides factual differences, the losses are occurring within all fifty states which means 50 different state law interpretations will apply. Recently, on March 27, 2020, a number of restaurants and movie theaters located in and around Chicago (the “Insureds”) filed a declaratory judgement action, titled Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc., against their property insurance carrier, Society Insurance, Inc. (“Society”), seeking coverage for business interruption resulting from the shutdown order issued by the governor of Illinois. The suit alleges that Society improperly denied their business interruption claims by using a boiler plate denial. The denial issued by Society is allegedly used for all COVID-19 losses regardless of the applicable jurisdiction’s interpretation of the policy language and the specific coverage purchased by the insured. Further, in its denial, Society takes the position that any loss related to a government-issued closure order is uncovered, even though the Insureds specifically purchased business interruption coverage and their policies did not contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

    Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

    August 03, 2020 —
    In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

    February 10, 2020 —
    Nationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable. In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

    Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues

    April 13, 2020 —
    Construction at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, Calif., and Allegiant Stadium outside Las Vegas—two new NFL stadiums scheduled to open in 2020—continue forward despite a worker at each location testing positive for COVID-19. Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

    February 18, 2020 —
    The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds. The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit. The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit. Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

    Will COVID-19 Permanently Shift the Balance between Work from Home and the Workplace?

    April 13, 2020 —
    On March 15, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued formal guidance to combat the spread of the coronavirus by recommending against gatherings of 50 or more people for the next eight weeks (CDC guidance), which includes nearly every office building in America. Thus, began the most significant work from home experiment this country has ever seen. With the majority of the workforce working from home, many employees see this as an opportunity to finally prove that, “yes, that meeting could have been an email.” However, while workers will not be distracted by constant (and potentially unnecessary) meetings, a number of issues and questions arise with working from home. Most importantly, is this working from home experiment a temporary opportunity for businesses to test remote work ideas or is this the new normal? And how will this affect commercial real estate moving forward? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adam Weaver, Pillsbury
    Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com